Billionaire Lululemon founder to divorce wife of 20 years with no prenup: report

The billionaire founder of popular women’s athleisure brand Lululemon has called it quits on his 20-year marriage – reportedly with no prenuptial agreement in place.

Dennis “Chip” Wilson, 71, whose net worth is valued at over $8 billion, is divorcing wife and former business collaborator Shannon Wilson, 52, with two sources now sharing insight into sealed court documents.

The family litigation between the Canadian couple is ongoing, but the documents in question were first filed in April.

Bloomberg reported sources familiar with the couple confirmed they had never signed a prenup before marrying.

The pair tied the knot in 2002, with Chip previously crediting Shannon for her role in growing Lululemon Athletica into the approximately $15.5 billion behemoth that it is today.

She was one of the company’s first hires in its fledgling stage, serving as its founding lead designer before leaving the company over a decade ago – around the same time as her husband.

Read more

From big bucks to intimate ceremonies: how Aussies are saving on their weddings

Chip stepped down as chairman of the board in 2013, following a series of controversial statements regarding inclusive sizing.

Despite this, he remains one of the company’s biggest shareholders.

In a 2013 Bloomberg TV interview, the founder infamously blamed plus-sized customers for driving the widespread recall of a specific pant design, which appeared sheer when stretched.

“Quite frankly, some women’s bodies just actually don’t work for [the pants],” he said at the time.

While the Vancouver businessman owns 8.6 per cent of the brand’s shares – worth a total of almost one billion – Shannon, who went on to found the luxury retail brand Kit and Ace, owns a one per cent stake in the clothing chain worth around $100 million.

Despite no longer working at Lululemon, Chip has been previously voiced his disapproval over the brand’s direction following his departure.

In a 2024 interview with Forbes, he criticised the brand’s move towards inclusivity, claiming it was attempting to be “everything to everybody.”

“I think the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody. You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in,” he added.

He went as far as to label the brand “bland,” slamming the “whole diversity and inclusion thing” it promoted in the years after he left.